minnesota k-12 & school choice survey (2015)

1 | www.edchoice.org

Minnesota K-12 & SCHOOL CHOICE SURVEY What Do Voters Say About K-12 Education?

Polling Paper No. 23

April 15, 2015

With questions on the direction of K-12 education, statewide

performance, education spending, grades and preferences for

different types of schools, charter schools, school vouchers,

education savings accounts, and tax-credit scholarships

Paul DiPerna

Research Director

[email protected]

www.edchoice.org

mailto:[email protected]


Survey Project & Profile Title: Minnesota K-12 & School Choice Survey

Survey Sponsor

& Developer: The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

Survey Data Collection

& Quality Control: Braun Research, Inc. (BRI)

Interview Dates: February 7 to 24, 2015

Interview Method: Live Telephone | 60% landline and 40% cell phone

Interview Length: 14 minutes (average)

Language(s): English

Sample Frame: Registered Voters

Sampling Method: Dual Frame; Probability Sampling; Random Digit Dial (RDD)

Population Sample: MINNESOTA (statewide) = 606

Margins of Error: MINNESOTA = ± 4.0 percentage points

Twin Cities = ± 5.5 percentage points

Response Rates: Landline (LL) = 14.2%

Cell Phone = 13.7%

Weighting? Yes (Landline/Cell, Age, Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Region)

Oversampling? No

Project Contact:

Paul DiPerna | Research Director |[email protected]

The author is responsible for overall polling design; question wording and ordering; this paper’s analysis, charts, and writing; and any unintentional errors or misrepresentations.

mailto:[email protected]


Survey Demographics

K-12 Parent 29

Democrat 34

Republican 23

Independent 28

Urban 21

Suburban 38

Small Town 24

Rural 17

18 to 24 10

25 to 34 13

35 to 44 17

45 to 54 17

55 to 64 20

65 & Over 21

Hispanic 2

Not Hispanic 98

Asian 4

Black 3

Mixed Race .

Native American .

White 92

Under $20,000 11

$20,000 to $39,999 15

$40,000 to $59,999 17

$60,000 to $79,999 14

$80,000 to $99,999 11

$100,000 to $149,999 12

$150,000 or more 10

Male 49

Female 51

Percent (%) of State Sample

after weighting


April 15, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

5 Minnesota’s K-12 Profile

7 Overview

8 Summary Findings

21 Survey Snapshots

49 Methods Summary

49 Sample Design

50 Contact Procedures

51 Call Dispositions and Response Rates

52 Weighting Procedures and Analysis

53 About Us, Acknowledgements

56 Survey Questions and Results


Minnesota’s K-12 Profile

Average State Rank on NAEP 1 6

High School Graduation Rate 2 80%

# Regular Public School Students 3 796,579

# Charter School Students 4 43,159

# Private School Students 6 76,693

# Home School Students 7 17,451

% Regular Public School Students 8 85.3%

% Charter School Students 8 4.6%

% Private School Students 8 8.2%

% Home School Students 8 1.9%

# School Districts 3 337

# Regular Public Schools 3 2,456

# Charter Schools 5 149

# Private Schools 6 504

Digital Learning Climate 9 Strong

% Free and Reduced-Price Lunch 3 37.1%

% Individualized Education Program (IEP) 3 14.6%

% English Language Learners (ELL) 3 7.2%

$ Revenue Per Student 10 $13,087

$ “Total” Per Student Spending 10 $13,026

$ “Current” Per Student Spending 10 $10,781

$ “Instructional” Per Student Spending 10 $7,070


Minnesota Profile Notes

1. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Average of four rankings

(rounded upward to nearest single digit) based on 2013 state scale scores for fourth-grade

reading (#8); fourth-grade math (#1); eighth-grade reading (#10); eighth-grade math (#4).

URL: nationsreportcard.gov/data_tools.asp

2. Reported public high school graduation rates, determined by the Adjusted Cohort Graduation

Rate (ACGR) on the National Center for Education Statistics section on the U.S. Department of

Education website. Data for 2012-2013 school year.

URL: nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_2010-11_to_2012-13.asp

3. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD). Data for the 2011-2012 school year. The number of

enrolled charter school students is subtracted from the NCES reported “Number enrolled,” and

we report that difference as the number of enrolled “regular public school students.”

URL: nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states

4. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Data for the 2013-2014 school year.

URL: dashboard.publiccharters.org/dashboard/students/page/overview/state/MN/year/2014

5. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Data for the 2013-2014 school year.

URL: dashboard.publiccharters.org/dashboard/schools/page/overview/state/MN/year/2014

6. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe

Survey (PSS). PSS estimates for the 2011–2012 school year.

URL: nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables/table_2011_15.asp

7. State-level estimates reported by Ann Zeise, accessed March 18, 2015:

a2zhomeschooling.com/thoughts_opinions_home_school/numbers_homeschooled_students

8. Percentages are meant for general impressions only. Due to rounding, percentage totals may be

slightly greater or less than 100%.

9. Author rating (Weak, Moderate, or Strong), based on John Watson, Larry Pape, Amy Murin,

Butch Gemin, and Lauren Vashaw, Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning: An Annual Review of

State-Level Policy and Practice, (Evergreen Education Group, 2014), p. 118.

URL: www.kpk12.com/wp-content/uploads/EEG_KP2014-fnl-lr.pdf

10. Stephen Q. Cornman, Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year

2011–12 (Fiscal Year 2012) (NCES 2014-30). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: National

Center for Education Statistics (January 2015).

URL: nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014301.pdf


Overview

The “Minnesota K-12 & School Choice Survey” project, commissioned by the Friedman

Foundation for Educational Choice and conducted by Braun Research, Inc. (BRI),

measures Minnesota registered voters’ familiarity and views on a range of K-12

education topics and school choice reforms. We report response levels and differences of

voter opinion, as well as the intensity of those responses.

Where do Minnesotans stand on important issues and policy proposals in K-12

education? I make some brief observations in this memo.

A randomly selected and statistically representative sample of Minnesota voters

responded to 20 substantive questions and items, as well as seven demographic

questions. A total of 606 telephone interviews were conducted in English from February

7 to 24, 2015, by means of both landline and cell phone. Statistical results have been

weighted to correct for known demographic discrepancies. The margin of sampling

error for the statewide sample is ± 4.0 percentage points.

In this polling project we also included three split-sample experiments. A split-sample

design is a systematic way of comparing the effects of two or more alternative wordings

for a given question. The purpose of the experiments were to see if providing new or

alternative pieces of information can significantly influence opinion on salient issues in

state politics and education policy conversations.

This polling paper has four sections. The first section summarizes key findings. We call

the second section “Survey Snapshots,” which offers charts highlighting the core

findings of the project. The third section describes the survey’s methodology,

summarizes response statistics, and presents additional technical information on call

dispositions for landline and cell phone interviews. The fourth section displays the

survey questions and results (“toplines”), allowing the reader to follow the interview as

it was conducted, with respect to question wording and ordering.


Summary Findings

Issue Priority

Education is a high priority for Minnesota voters right now. One out of five

respondents (20%) said “education” was the most important issue facing

Minnesota, just slightly edging out “economy and jobs” (19%).

What else was important to voters? Equal proportions (15%) indicated

“healthcare” and “taxes” as the state’s highest priority.

Certain demographic subgroups significantly differ from one another when

saying education is a top priority:

Democrats (27%) are significantly different on this response compared

with Independents (18%) and Republicans (11%).

Females (25%) are more likely than males (15%) to prioritize education as an issue.

Older voters (15%) tend to be less inclined to point to education as a top

priority, compared with younger voters (26%) and middle-age voters (23%).1

1 In this section we discuss responses offered by a range of demographic groups. We are at least 90%

confident of any noted significant differences comparing subgroups to state average or between two or more

subgroups. Please consider that each subgroup has a unique margin of error based on its adult population

size in the United States and the unweighted sample size obtained in this survey. We advise strong caution

when interpreting results for subgroups with small sample sizes. When I refer to subgroup sample sizes –

for example in forthcoming tables – those numbers represent the unweighted number of interviews.

For terminology: We use the label “school parents” to refer to those respondents who said they have one

or more children in preschool through high school. We use the label “non-schoolers” for respondents

without children, or who may have children that are not in the specific grade range PK-12. For

terminology regarding age groups: “young voters” reflect respondents who are age 18 to 34; “middle-age

voters” are 35 to 54; and “older voters” or “seniors” are 55 and older. Labels pertaining to income groups

go as follows: “low-income” < $40,000; “middle-income” ≥ $40,000 and < $80,000; “high-income” ≥ $80,000.


Direction of K-12 Education

Minnesotans are much more likely to think K-12 education is heading in the

“right direction” (52%), compared with being on the “wrong track” (36%).

We observe positive attitudes about the direction of K-12 education across most

demographics. However, some key differences stand out when making

comparisons within demographic categories:

Younger voters (63%) give a positive response more often than older

voters (46%). The margin for seniors is only +2 points.

Democrats (62%) are more likely to say “right direction” compared with

Republicans (45%). The Republican margin is just +3 points.

High-income earners (58%) are significantly more positive than middle-

income earners (48%).

Suburban voters (57%) and small-town voters (55%) are significantly more

likely to signal a positive direction than those who reside in rural communities

(42%). Rural voters expressed the only negative margin (-3 points).

The largest positive margins are among: young voters (+41 points), Democrats

(+32 points), high-income earners (+24 points), school parents (+23 points),

suburbanites (+22 points), and low-income earners (+22 points).

Statewide Performance of Public Schools

A very large proportion of voters have a sharply positive view of the state’s public

school system. Nearly two out of three gave positive ratings to the state’s public

school system (65% said “good” or “excellent”; 33% said “fair” or “poor”).

There are several significant differences when comparing subgroups within a

demographic category:


Young voters (74%) are more positive than either middle-aged (60%) or

older voters (63%).

High-income earners (74%) are more positive than low-income (58%) and

middle-income earners (62%).

Suburbanites (73%) are more likely to give a positive rating than urban

(57%) or rural voters (55%).

Democrats (71%) are more positive than Independents (61%).

The largest positive margins are among: suburbanites (+49 points), Democrats

(+45 points), young voters (+48 points), and high-income earners (+51 points).

Education Spending

About $10,700 is spent on each student in Minnesota’s public schools, and just

14% of respondents could estimate the correct per-student spending range

($8,001 to $12,000) for the state.

One-fifth of respondents (20%) thought $4,000 or less was being spent per-

student in the state’s public schools. Another 26% of voters either said they

“don’t know” or could not offer a spending number.

When considering “total expenditures” per student ($13,205 in 2011-12),

which is another definition for educational spending, it is even more likely

voter estimates are more dramatically off target.2 Respondents tended to

underestimate rather than overestimate.

2 “Current Expenditures” data include dollars spent on instruction, instruction-related support services,

and other elementary/secondary current expenditures, but exclude expenditures on long-term debt service,

facilities and construction, and other programs. “Total Expenditures” includes the latter categories.

See Stephen Q. Cornman, Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School

Year 2011–12 (Fiscal Year 2012) (NCES 2014-30). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.:

National Center for Education Statistics (January 2015).

URL: nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014301.pdf


Seven out of 10 survey respondents (69%) either underestimated educational

spending per student (with a cautious definition citing “current

expenditures”), or they could not give an answer or guess.

When given the latest per-student spending information, voters are less likely to

say public school funding is at a level that is “too low,” compared with answering

without having such information.

In an experiment, we asked three slightly different questions about the level of

public school funding in Minnesota. On version 6A, 45% of voters said public

school funding was “too low.” However, on version 6B, which included a

sentence referring to data on current per-student funding in Minnesota

($10,781), the proportion of voters saying “too low” shrank by 14 percentage

points to 31%.

Grades and Preferences for Different Types of Schools

Minnesota voters are more likely to give A or B grades to private and parochial

schools in their communities than they are their local public schools. When

considering all responses, we see approximately 54% of voters give an A or B to

local public schools, whereas 64% give an A or B to local private/parochial

schools and 41% give those high grades to public charter schools. Only 3% of

voters give a D or F grade to local private schools; 10% assigned similar low

grades to public schools and 6% gave those grades to public charter schools.

When examining only those responses giving grades to different school types in

their communities, we saw approximately 56% of voters give an A or B to local

public schools, whereas 83% give an A or B to local private/parochial schools.

Only 4% of voters give a D or F grade to private schools, and 10% assigned

similar low grades to area public schools.


It should be noted that much higher proportions of voters did not express a

view for private schools (23%) or charter schools (36%), compared with the

proportion that did not grade public schools (4%).

In Minnesota, substantial gaps exist between personal school preferences and actual

school enrollments. When asked for a preferred school type, a plurality of voters

said they would choose a regular public school (45%) as a first option. In reality,

about 85% of K-12 students attend public schools in Minnesota. More than one out

of three voters (36%) said they would want to send their child to a private school.

Only 8% of students enroll in private schools. Almost one out of ten would opt for a

charter school (8%). Nearly 5% of students currently go to public charter schools.

Approximately 7% of respondents said they would like to homeschool their child. It

is estimated that just under 2% of the state’s students are homeschooled.

In a follow-up question, more respondents in our survey prioritized “better

education/quality” (15%) than any other coded response to explain why they

selected a certain school type. Other school attributes cited as important include

“individual attention/one-on-one” (10%) and “diversity/variety” (10%).

The following are prominently cited school characteristics for choosing a

specific school type:

Public District School (N = 274)

21% Diversity/Variety

16% Socialization/Peers/Other Kids

Private School (N = 222)

20% Better Education/Quality

16% Class Size/Student-Teacher Ratio

16% Individual Attention/One-on-One


Public Charter School (N = 55)


20% Better Education/Quality

20% Class Size/Student-Teacher Ratio

Home School (N = 39)

25% Morals/Values/Ethics


Charter Schools

Voters support public charter schools. A significant majority (59%) say they favor

charter schools, whereas 28% of respondents say they oppose charters. The

margin of support for charter schools is large (+31 points). Intensity is

moderately positive (+12 points).

We asked a pair of questions about public charter schools. The first question

asked for an opinion without offering any definition or context. On this

baseline question, 50% of voters said they favored charters and 22% said

they opposed them. In the follow-up question, respondents were given a

definition for a charter school. With this basic definition, support rose nine

points to 59%, and opposition increased six points to 28%.

We estimate 27% of respondents were initially unfamiliar with charter schools

before listening to the survey’s definition.

The opinion contrast budged modestly in the positive direction when

comparing baseline responses to follow-up. The positive margin of support

favoring charter schools grew from +28 points to +31 points.

All demographic subgroups clearly support charter schools, albeit at slightly

varying levels. The smallest margin – still in the positive direction – is reflected

among urban voters (+15 points). The subgroups having the highest margins


are: Republicans (+47 points), rural voters (+42 points), small-town voters

(+40 points), low-income earners (+40 points), and females (+38 points).

The intensity moved slightly more in the positive direction, comparing

baseline (+9 points) to follow-up (+12 points). So positive intensity lifted

upward +3 points. Specifically on the follow-up, Minnesotans were twice as

likely to say they “strongly favor” charter schools (20%) compared with those

who said they “strongly oppose” (8%) such schools.

School Vouchers

Six out of 10 Minnesota voters (64%) said they support school vouchers, compared

with 31% who said they oppose such a choice system. The margin of support (+33

points) is more than eight-times the survey’s margin of error. The intensity of

support is also significantly positive +15 points (33% “strongly favor” vs. 18%

“strongly oppose”).

Our interviewers also asked baseline and follow-up questions about school

vouchers. In the first question, respondents were asked for their views on

vouchers without definition or context: 40% of Minnesotans said they favored

vouchers and 25% said they opposed such an education policy. In the follow-

up question – using a basic definition for a school voucher system – voter

support rose 24 points to 64%, and opposition increased six points to 31%.

The opinion change on vouchers – from baseline to follow-up – more than

doubles the positive margin, from +15 points to +33 points. The intensity for

vouchers also shifts in the positive direction, from +6 points to +15 points.

We estimate 35% of respondents were initially unfamiliar with school

vouchers. The proportion of “don’t know” (DK) responses shrinks by 30

points (35% to 5%) when comparing the baseline item to the definition item.


The demographic subgroups that are most likely to favor school vouchers

are: low-income earners (margin = +55 points), Republicans (margin = +51

points), young voters (margin = +50 points), and small-town voters (margin

= +48 points). Although still showing positive margins, the subgroups that

are relatively the least likely to support vouchers are Democrats (margin =

+18 points) and high-income earners (margin = +18 points). No observed

subgroup shows a negative margin of support-opposition.

Which subgroups are most enthusiastic about school vouchers? Republicans (+32

points) and low-income earners (+32 points) indicate the most robust support for

school vouchers. On the other hand, the weakest positive intensity is expressed by:

Democrats (+4 points), older voters (+7 points), high-income earners (+8 points),

suburbanites (+8 points), and Twin Cities residents (+9 points).

Education Savings Accounts (ESAs)

Nearly six out of 10 Minnesotans (59%) said they support an “education savings

account” system (“ESA”). Voters are significantly more likely to favor ESAs rather

than oppose such a system. The margin of support is large (+27 points) and just

one-third (32%) said they oppose ESAs.

There are some notable differences within demographic categories:

School parents (65%) are more likely to favor ESAs compared with non-

schoolers (56%).

Republicans (65%) are more favorable than Democrats (54%).

Older voters (51%) are significantly less supportive than young voters (63%)

or middle-age voters (65%).

Low-income earners (66%) are more likely to support ESAs than high-

income earners (53%).

A number of subgroups stand out for their intensity toward this policy idea.

Most intensely favorable subgroups are: low-income earners (+23 points),


middle-age voters (+22 points), rural voters (+21 points), young voters (+20

points), school parents (+19 points), Independents (+17 points), and

Republicans (+17 points). A few subgroups registered a positive intensity level

in the low single digits, barely reflecting a positive direction: urbanites (+6

points), Democrats (+6 points), and older voters (+2 points).

There is overwhelming support to establish ESAs for students with physical

disabilities or diagnosed with other special needs.

Four out of five voters (80%) support this general proposal that state

policymakers are considering in 2015. Only 15% of voters oppose

this ESA plan.

Minnesotans were six times more likely to say they “strongly favor”

ESAs for student with special needs (42%) compared with those who

said they “strongly oppose” (7%) the idea.

If a voter has a particular view on ESAs, he or she is twice as likely to vote for the

pro-ESA candidate (31% “more likely” vs. 14% “less likely”). About one-half of

voters (56%) signaled that ESAs are not a make or break issue or did not express

an opinion on this item.

A few demographic subgroups are worth noting for their position on ESAs.

When considering responses sharing a preference, the subgroups most likely

to say they will support a pro-ESA candidate are young voters (40% and

margin = +28 points), small-town voters (34% and margin = +21 points), and

middle-age voters (33% and margin = +21 points).

There is a consistent likelihood to support a pro-ESA candidate regardless of

political party identification:

Democrat: 35% more likely to support; margin = +18 points

Republican: 31% more likely to support; margin = +19 points

Independent: 29% more likely to support; margin = +11 points


No observed demographic is overall less likely to support a pro-ESA candidate.

Tax-Credit Scholarships

Minnesota Voters are more than twice as likely to support a tax-credit

scholarship system than they are to oppose one. Almost two out of three voters

support the idea. The percentage of those who favor (65%) is much larger than

the proportion of voters who say they oppose such a school choice reform (25%).

The favor-oppose margin is +40 percentage points. Likewise, voters are more

than twice as likely to express intensely positive responses toward tax-credit

scholarships (26% “strongly favor” vs. 10% “strongly oppose”).

Some significant contrasts emerge on this item when comparing subgroups

within demographic categories:

Republicans (76%) are much more supportive than either Democrats

(62%) or Independents (60%).

Older voters (56%) are relatively less likely to support such a policy

compared with young voters (76%) and middle-age voters (69%).

High-income earners (58%) are relatively less likely to support tax-

credit scholarships compared with low-income earners (74%) and

middle-income earners (68%).

Highest margins of support are among Republicans (+58 points), young

voters (+62 points), and low-income earners (+60 points). On the other end

of the range, the lowest margins are exhibited by older voters (+22 points),

high-income earners (+22 points), and Independents (+28 points).

Most intensely favorable subgroups are young voters (+24 points), school

parents (+23 points), rural voters (+22 points), low-income earners (+22

points), Republicans (+21 points), and middle-age voters (+21 points). The


weakest intensities for tax-credit scholarships are among Democrats (+10

points), older voters (+6 points), and high-income earners (+9 points).

In a follow-up question, we asked respondents to indicate why they said they

expressed support or opposition to tax-credit scholarships:

Asked to those favorable, the most common reasons for supporting tax-credit

scholarships are “more freedom and flexibility for parents” (36%) and “access

to schools having better academic outcomes” (27%).

Asked to those in the opposition, the most common reasons for opposing tax-

credit scholarships are “divert funding away from public schools” (49%) and

that such a program would “benefit business and wealthy individuals” (17%).

Minnesota voters are much more likely to prefer universal access to tax-credit

scholarships rather than means-tested eligibility based solely on financial need.

In a split-sample experiment, we asked about different scholarship eligibility

descriptions. Nearly seven out of 10 voters (68%) in one half of the survey sample

said they agree with the statement that tax-credit scholarships “should be

available to all families, regardless of incomes and special needs.” Approximately

30% of respondents “strongly agree” with that statement. One-fourth of voters

(26%) disagree with that statement; 12% said they “strongly disagree.”

In the other split sample, just under four out of 10 respondents (38%) agreed

with the statement that tax-credit scholarships “should only be available to

families based on financial need.” One-fifth of respondents (15%) “strongly

agree” with that statement. Nearly six out of 10 respondents (56%) disagree

with that statement; 27% said they “strongly disagree.”

If a voter has a particular view on tax-credit scholarships, he or she is more

than twice as likely to vote for the pro-school choice candidate (26% “more


likely” vs. 12% “less likely”). Six out of 10 voters (60%) signaled that a tax-credit

scholarship program would not be a make or break issue or did not express an

opinion on this item.

Once again when it comes to voting preference, a respondent’s age matters. The

subgroups most likely to say they will vote for a candidate who supports tax-

credit scholarships are young voters (32% and margin = +26 points) and

middle-age voters (30% and margin = +21 points). By contrast, older voters run

about even (19% “more likely” vs. 17% “less likely”).

Like ESAs, there is a consistent likelihood to support a pro-tax-credit

scholarship candidate regardless of political party identification:

Democrat: 28% more likely to support; margin = +14 points

Republican: 29% more likely to support; margin = +18 points

Independent: 21% more likely to support; margin = +8 points

No observed demographic is overall less likely to support a pro-tax-credit

scholarship candidate.

Advocacy Group Signals

To one-half of the statewide sample, we asked “How influential to you is the

teacher’s union endorsement of a candidate for state office…, ” and a clear

plurality (45%) said that the union has a positive influence. Nearly one-quarter

(24%) said the teacher’s union has a negative influence.

However, the influence tends to be mild in its intensity (+2 points). Voters are

barely more likely to say the union signal is a “strong positive influence”

(16%), compared with a “strong negative influence” (14%).

The teachers union endorsement carries more weight with certain

demographics than others. It is a strong positive signal for: urban voters


(62%), Democrats (63%), young voters (59%), and low-income earners (56%).

The union endorsement is a negative signal for at least a plurality within

certain groups, including Republicans (47%) and rural voters (39%).

To the other half of the statewide sample, we asked “How influential to you is a

parent advocacy organization’s endorsement of a candidate for state office…, ”

and a slightly larger plurality (48%) said that the organization would have a

positive influence. Only 13% said such a group would have a negative influence.

Intensity of this positive influence also tends to be mild (+7 points). Voters

are a little more likely to say the parent advocate’s signal is a “strong positive

influence” (11%), compared with a “strong negative influence” (4%).

A parent group’s endorsement carries the most weight among: Democrats

(59%), middle-age voters (57%), urban voters (54%), school parents (53%),

and middle-income earners (53%). Such an endorsement does not carry an

overall negative signal for any observed subgroup.


Survey Snapshots


Right Direction Wrong Track Margin

% % N=

ALL RESPONDENTS 52 36 + 16 606

Twin Cities 52 37 + 15 323

School Parent 56 33 + 23 156

Non-Schooler 51 38 + 13 449

COMMUNITY

Urban 50 35 + 15 123

Suburban 57 35 + 22 224

Small Town 55 35 + 20 146

Rural 42 45 - 3 109

PARTY ID

Democrat 62 30 + 32 204

Republican 45 42 + 3 140

Independent 53 37 + 16 174

AGE GROUP

18 to 34 63 22 + 41 105

35 to 54 53 36 + 17 179

55 & Over 46 44 + 2 299

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Under $40,000 55 33 + 22 165

$40,000 to $79,999 48 40 + 8 184

$80,000 & Over 58 34 + 24 180

RACE/ETHNICITY

Asian 64 18 + 46 17

Black 63 37 + 26 23

Hispanic 84 16 + 68 9

White 51 37 + 14 528

GENDER

Female 52 39 + 13 308

Male 53 34 + 19 298

Q3. Do you feel things in Minnesota’s K-12 education system are generally

going in the right direction, or do you feel things have generally gotten off

on the wrong track?

NOTE: Please consider that each subgroup has a unique margin of error based on its adult population size in the

United States and the sample size (N) obtained in this survey. We advise strong caution when interpreting results

for subgroups with small sample sizes. The subgroup sample sizes displayed in the far right column represent the

unweighted number of interviews. All other statistical results reported in this table and report reflect weighted

data, a standard procedure to correct for known demographic discrepancies.

SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, Minnesota K-12 & School Choice Survey, Q3.


Good/Excellent Fair/Poor Margin Intensity

% % N=

ALL RESPONDENTS 65 33 + 32 + 8 606

Twin Cities 66 32 + 34 + 10 323

School Parent 63 35 + 28 + 8 156

Non-Schooler 66 32 + 34 + 8 449

COMMUNITY

Urban 57 42 + 15 + 3 123

Suburban 73 24 + 49 + 15 224

Small Town 66 33 + 33 + 5 146

Rural 55 41 + 14 + 3 109

PARTY ID

Democrat 71 26 + 45 + 15 204

Republican 67 32 + 35 + 9 140

Independent 61 35 + 26 + 5 174

AGE GROUP

18 to 34 74 26 + 48 + 7 105

35 to 54 60 36 + 24 + 8 179

55 & Over 63 35 + 28 + 9 299

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Under $40,000 58 39 + 19 + 3 165

$40,000 to $79,999 62 37 + 25 + 4 184

$80,000 & Over 74 23 + 51 + 17 180

RACE/ETHNICITY

Asian 62 38 + 24 + 14 17

Black 51 49 + 2 + 10 23

Hispanic 83 17 + 66 + 27 9

White 65 32 + 33 + 7 528

GENDER

Female 64 32 + 32 + 11 308

Male 65 33 + 32 + 6 298

Q4. How would you rate Minnesota’s public school system?

NOTE: Please consider that each subgroup has a unique margin of error based on its adult population size in the United

States and the sample size (N) obtained in this survey. We advise strong caution when interpreting results for subgroups

with small sample sizes. The subgroup sample sizes displayed in the far right column represent the unweighted number

of interviews. All other statistical results reported in this table and report reflect weighted data, a standard procedure to

correct for known demographic discrepancies. Based on Gallup's "Positive Intensity Score," Intensity is measured by

subtracting the combined percentages of "fair" and "poor" responses from the combined percentages of "good" and

"excellent" responses. The difference indicates the enthusiasm behind the positive or negative ratings.

SOURCE: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, Minnesota K-12 & School Choice Survey , Q4.


Public School Private School Charter School Home School

% % % % N=

ALL RESPONDENTS 45 36 8 7 606

Twin Cities 43 41 8 5 323

School Parent 41 38 11 8 156

Non-Schooler 47 36 7 6 449

COMMUNITY

Urban 47 39 8 4 123

Suburban 46 40 7 4 224

Small Town 49 26 12 11 146

Rural 34 41 8 11 109

PARTY ID

Democrat 56 30 10 1 204

Republican 32 47 7 11 140

Independent 45 38 8 6 174

AGE GROUP

18 to 34 53 27 5 11 105

35 to 54 42 40 10 6 179

55 & Over 43 39 9 5 299

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Under $40,000 38 34 12 13 165

$40,000 to $79,999 48 36 7 7 184

$80,000 & Over 49 38 7 2 180

RACE/ETHNICITY

Asian 59 23 18 0 17

Black 38 35 12 12 23

Hispanic 65 33 2 0 9

White 45 37 8 7 528

GENDER

Female 42 38 10 7 308

Male 48 35 7 6 298

Q8. If it were your decision and you could select any type of school, what type of school

would you select in order to obtain the best education for your child?

NOTE: Please consider that each subgroup has a unique margin of error based on its adult population size in the United States and the

sample size (N) obtained in this survey. We advise strong caution when interpreting results for subgroups with small sample sizes. The

subgroup sample sizes displayed in the far right column represent the unweighted number of interviews. All other statistical results

reported in this table and report reflect weighted data, a standard procedure to correct for known demographic discrepancies.



BETTER EDUCATION / QUALITY 92

INDIVIDUAL ATTENTION / ONE-ON-ONE 59

DIVERSITY / VARIETY 57

SOCIALIZATION / PEERS / OTHER KIDS 50

CLASS SIZE / STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO 48

TEACHERS / BETTER TEACHERS / TEACHING 43

MORALS / VALUES / ETHICS 39

ACADEMICS / CURRICULUM 34

ENVIRONMENT / CULTURE / COMMUNITY 27

DISCIPLINE / STRUCTURE 25

Q9. What is the most important characteristic or attribute that would cause

you to choose a [INSERT SCHOOL TYPE FROM PREVIOUS QUESTION] for your

child? Please use one word, or a very short phrase.

Top 10 | Specific impressions offered by respondents in the statewide

sample. Numbers represent counts (n), not percentages.



Favor Oppose Margin Intensity

% % N=


Twin Cities 54 31 + 23 + 10 323

School Parent 55 29 + 26 + 13 156

Non-Schooler 60 27 + 33 + 12 449

COMMUNITY

Urban 51 36 + 15 + 5 123

Suburban 58 30 + 28 + 12 224

Small Town 62 22 + 40 + 14 146

Rural 65 23 + 42 + 18 109

PARTY ID

Democrat 55 35 + 20 + 5 204

Republican 66 19 + 47 + 23 140

Independent 54 33 + 21 + 8 174

AGE GROUP

18 to 34 59 25 + 34 + 14 105

35 to 54 59 27 + 32 + 12 179

55 & Over 58 30 + 28 + 11 299

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Under $40,000 63 23 + 40 + 17 165

$40,000 to $79,999 56 32 + 24 + 12 184

$80,000 & Over 59 28 + 31 + 8 180

RACE/ETHNICITY

Asian 50 23 + 27 + 14 17

Black 68 17 + 51 + 24 23

Hispanic 92 6 + 86 even 9

White 58 29 + 29 + 11 528

GENDER

Female 63 25 + 38 + 16 308

Male 54 31 + 23 + 8 298

Q11. Charter schools are public schools that have more control over their own

budget, staff, and curriculum, and are exempt from many existing public school

regulations. In general, do you favor or oppose charter schools?


States and the sample size (N) obtained in this survey. We advise strong caution when interpreting results for

subgroups with small sample sizes. The subgroup sample sizes displayed in the far right column represent the

unweighted number of interviews. All other statistical results reported in this table and report reflect weighted data,

a standard procedure to correct for known demographic discrepancies. Based on Gallup's "Positive Intensity Score,"

Intensity is measured by subtracting the percentage of "strongly oppose" responses from the percentage of "strongly

favor" responses. The difference indicates enthusiasm behind the support or opposition for a given policy or proposal.




% % N=


Twin Cities 59 36 + 23 + 9 323

School Parent 66 28 + 38 + 22 156

Non-Schooler 63 32 + 31 + 13 449

COMMUNITY

Urban 59 33 + 26 + 16 123

Suburban 61 35 + 26 + 8 224

Small Town 71 23 + 48 + 23 146

Rural 69 30 + 39 + 22 109

PARTY ID

Democrat 57 39 + 18 + 4 204

Republican 72 21 + 51 + 32 140

Independent 60 34 + 26 + 12 174

AGE GROUP

18 to 34 73 23 + 50 + 21 105

35 to 54 66 29 + 37 + 23 179

55 & Over 58 37 + 21 + 7 299

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Under $40,000 76 21 + 55 + 32 165

$40,000 to $79,999 63 31 + 32 + 15 184

$80,000 & Over 56 38 + 18 + 8 180

RACE/ETHNICITY

Asian 73 18 + 55 + 32 17

Black 80 20 + 60 + 38 23

Hispanic 49 36 + 13 - 5 9

White 64 31 + 33 + 14 528

GENDER

Female 65 28 + 37 + 18 308

Male 64 33 + 31 + 14 298

Q13. A school voucher system allows parents the option of sending their child to

the school of their choice, whether that school is public or private, including both

religious and non-religious schools. If this policy were adopted, tax dollars

currently allocated to a school district would be allocated to parents in the form

of a “school voucher” to pay partial or full tuition for their child’s school. In

general, do you favor or oppose a school voucher system?




with small sample sizes. The subgroup sample sizes displayed in the far right column represent the unweighted number

of interviews. All other statistical results reported in this table and report reflect weighted data, a standard procedure to


subtracting the percentage of "strongly oppose" responses from the percentage of "strongly favor" responses. The

difference indicates enthusiasm behind the support or opposition for a given policy or proposal.



% % N=


Twin Cities 58 34 + 24 + 11 323

School Parent 65 29 + 36 + 19 156

Non-Schooler 56 33 + 23 + 11 449

COMMUNITY

Urban 51 35 + 16 + 6 123

Suburban 59 32 + 27 + 13 224

Small Town 63 29 + 34 + 15 146

Rural 61 31 + 30 + 21 109

PARTY ID

Democrat 54 37 + 17 + 7 204

Republican 65 29 + 36 + 17 140

Independent 57 34 + 23 + 13 174

AGE GROUP

18 to 34 63 29 + 34 + 20 105

35 to 54 65 28 + 37 + 22 179

55 & Over 51 38 + 13 + 2 299

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Under $40,000 66 25 + 41 + 23 165

$40,000 to $79,999 61 29 + 32 + 11 184

$80,000 & Over 53 41 + 12 + 11 180

RACE/ETHNICITY

Asian 50 27 + 23 + 36 17

Black 78 9 + 69 + 32 23

Hispanic 94 3 + 91 + 30 9

White 58 34 + 24 + 11 528

GENDER

Female 61 28 + 33 + 16 308

Male 57 36 + 21 + 10 298

Q14. An "education savings account" - often called an "ESA" - allows parents to

take their child out of a public district or charter school, and receive a payment

into a government-authorized savings account with restricted, but multiple uses.

Parents can then use these funds to pay for private school tuition, tutoring, online

education programs, special needs therapies, or save for future college expenses.

In general, do you favor or oppose this kind of “savings account system”?



with small sample sizes. The subgroup sample sizes displayed in the far right column represent the unweighted number of

interviews. All other statistical results reported in this table and report reflect weighted data, a standard procedure to







% % N=


Twin Cities 63 30 + 33 + 15 323

School Parent 67 23 + 44 + 23 156

Non-Schooler 65 26 + 39 + 14 449

COMMUNITY

Urban 65 25 + 40 + 16 123

Suburban 64 30 + 34 + 12 224

Small Town 66 21 + 45 + 17 146

Rural 70 19 + 51 + 22 109

PARTY ID

Democrat 62 28 + 34 + 10 204

Republican 76 18 + 58 + 21 140

Independent 60 32 + 28 + 17 174

AGE GROUP

18 to 34 76 14 + 62 + 24 105

35 to 54 69 22 + 47 + 21 179

55 & Over 56 34 + 22 + 6 299

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Under $40,000 74 14 + 60 + 22 165

$40,000 to $79,999 68 20 + 48 + 18 184

$80,000 & Over 58 36 + 22 + 9 180

RACE/ETHNICITY

Asian 68 14 + 54 + 45 17

Black 78 10 + 68 + 38 23

Hispanic 98 2 + 96 + 44 9

White 64 26 + 38 + 14 528

GENDER

Female 63 25 + 38 + 13 308

Male 67 25 + 42 + 18 298

Q17. A “tax credit” allows an individual or business to reduce the final amount of

a tax owed to government. Some states give tax credits to individuals and

businesses if they contribute money to nonprofit organizations that distribute

private school scholarships. A “tax-credit scholarship system” allows parents the

option of sending their child to the school of their choice, whether that school is

public or private, including both religious and non-religious schools. In general, do

you favor or oppose a tax-credit scholarship system?



with small sample sizes. The subgroup sample sizes displayed in the far right column represent the unweighted number of

interviews. All other statistical results reported in this table and report reflect weighted data, a standard procedure to






Methods Summary

The “Minnesota K-12 & School Choice Survey” project, commissioned by the Friedman

Foundation for Educational Choice and conducted by Braun Research, Inc. (BRI),

interviewed a statistically representative sample of registered voters in the state of

Minnesota. Methodology included probability sampling and random-digit dial. The

unweighted statewide sample includes a total of 606 telephone interviews completed in

English from February 7 to 24, 2015, by means of both landline and cell phone. Statistical

results were weighted to correct known demographic discrepancies.

The margin of sampling error for the statewide sample is ± 4.0 percentage points.

BRI’s live callers conducted all phone interviews. For this entire project, a total of 7,400

calls were made in Minnesota: 4,200 landline and 3,200 cell phone. Of these calls,

2,661 were unusable phone numbers (disconnected, fax, busy, non-residential, or non-

answers, etc.); 3,950 were usable numbers but eligibility unknown (including refusals

and voicemail); 87 cell phone numbers were usable but not eligible for this survey; 19

people did not complete the survey. The average response rate of the landline interviews

was 14.7%. The average response rate of the cell phone interviews was 13.7%.

Details on call dispositions, landline and cell phone response rates, and weighting are

discussed in the following sections.

Sample Design

A combination of landline and cellular random-digit-dial (RDD) samples was used to

represent registered voters in Minnesota who have access to either a landline or cellular

telephone. Both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International, LLC (SSI)

according to BRI specifications.

SSI starts with a database of all listed telephone numbers, updated on a four- to six-

week rolling basis, 25 percent of the listings at a time. All active blocks – contiguous

groups of 100 phone numbers for which more than one residential number is listed –


are added to this database. Blocks and exchanges that include only listed business

numbers are excluded.

Numbers for the landline sample were drawn with equal probabilities from active blocks

(area code + exchange + two-digit block number) that contained three or more

residential directory listings. The cellular sample was not list-assisted, but was drawn

through a systematic sampling from dedicated wireless 100-blocks and shared service

100-blocks with no directory-listed landline numbers.

Contact Procedures

Interviews were conducted from February 7 to 24, 2015. As many as eight attempts were

made to contact every sampled telephone number. The sample was released for

interviewing in replicates, which are representative subsamples of the larger sample.

Using replicates to control the release of the sample ensures that complete call

procedures are followed for the entire sample. Calls were staggered over times of day

and days of the week to maximize the chance of making contact with potential

respondents. Each phone number received at least one daytime call.

We have noticed in recent years that response rates have been declining for consumer

polls. Generally, running surveys over a longer period of time will boost these response

rates. However, lower response rates do not lead to lower reliability of the data. For

example, polls with a sample size of 1,200 respondents run over a two-day period with

response rates of 3% or 4% have been acceptable for public release.

The survey’s margin of error is the largest 95% Confidence Interval for any estimated

proportion based on the total sample – the one around 50%. The overall statewide margin

of error for this survey is ± 4.0%. This means that in 95 of every 100 samples drawn using

the same methodology, estimated proportions based on the entire sample will be no more

than 4.0 percentage points away from their true values in the population.


It is critical to note that the margin of sampling error (MSE) is higher when considering

the number of respondents for a given demographic subgroup. For example, the MSE

for a subgroup of 150 respondents is ± 8.0 percentage points.

In addition to sampling error, question wording, ordering, and other practical

difficulties when conducting surveys may introduce error or bias into the findings of

public opinion research.

Call Dispositions and Response Rates

Landline Cell Phone Landline Cell Phone

4,200 3,200 Total 927 762 Disconnected

4,200 3,200 Released 3 0 Fax

0 0 Unreleased 76 24 Government/Business

2,949 2,403 Usable 0 - Cell Phone

1,251 797 Unusable - 0 Landline

2,541 1,798 Qualified 1,006 786 Unusable

70.2% 75.1% Est. Usability 736 45 No Answer

82.8% 74.5% Est. Eligibility 87 1 Busy

14.2% 13.7% Est. Response 823 46 Usability Unknown

360 246 Complete

11 8 Break-Off

371 254 Usable/Eligible

924 774 Refused

18 8 Language Barrier

668 683 Voice Mail

249 521 Call Back-Retry

56 38 Strong Refusal

8 3 Privacy Manager

1,923 2,027 Usable/Eligible Unknown

- - Under 18

77 87 Usable/Ineligible

14.2% 13.7% Response Rate

Minnesota Statewide Call Dispositions

SUMMARY DETAIL


Weighting Procedures and Analysis

Weighting is generally used in survey analysis to compensate for sample designs and

patterns of non-response that might bias results. In this study, the sample demographics

were balanced to population parameters. We weighted overall statewide results based on

Landline/Cell Phone usage, and then Age, Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Region.

All weighting measures are based on Census Bureau statistics for the state of Minnesota.

The weighted and unweighted data are available on request.


About the Author

Paul DiPerna ([email protected]) is Research Director for the Friedman Foundation

for Educational Choice in Indianapolis. He joined the foundation in September 2006.

DiPerna’s research interests include surveys and polling on K-12 education and school

choice policies. He also directs and manages all other research projects commissioned

by the foundation. DiPerna has traveled to 28 states for his work, presenting survey

research findings and discussing various school choice policies for audiences including

public officials, policy professionals, advocates, and academics.

Previously, DiPerna served as the assistant director for the Brown Center on Education

Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. His six years at Brookings

included projects evaluating the federal Blue Ribbon Schools Program and analyzing

student achievement in charter schools. DiPerna was a research analyst for the first five

issues of the Brown Center Report on American Education (2000-2004). He also

managed and coordinated the activities of the National Working Commission on Choice

in K-12 Education (2001-2005).

A native of Pittsburgh, DiPerna earned an M.A. in political science from the University

of Illinois (2000) and B.A. from the University of Dayton (1996).

Acknowledgements

A number of people made significant contributions during the course of this survey

project. Drew Catt played an important role verifying data in this report. Very helpful

feedback about survey items, as well as insights about context at the local/state level

were provided by: Jason Adkins, Jim Bartholomew, Tim Benz, Jim Field, Fred Hinz, Lee

McGrath, Mitch Pearlstein, and Shawn Peterson. We thank the team at Braun Research

who assisted in project development, and for their excellent work in conducting the

interviews and collecting the data. I appreciate the time and commitments from Paul

Braun, Cynthia Miller, and Dave Oshman. Finally, we are of course grateful to the

respondents who generously agreed to participate in our survey interviews.


About the Survey Organization

Braun Research, Inc. (BRI)

The Braun Research network of companies, founded in 1995, combined employ 39 full-

time and more than 236 part-time employees engaged in data collection via telephone,

and internet for various survey research firms, government and advertising agencies, local

community organizations, local and national business groups, foundations, universities

and academic entities, as well as religious organizations. In 20 years, Braun Research has

conducted almost 10,000 research projects by telephone, internet, and mail worldwide.

Nationally-known research firms have hired Braun Research, including the Gallup

Organization, the Pew Research Center, the Eagleton Poll, Mathematica Policy

Research, and The Washington Post. Braun Research has worked for the New Jersey

Department of Health and Human Services, as well as other government agencies

including the United States Departments of the Treasury and Defense, and the Center

for Disease Control.

The work we accomplish for other research firms requires us to perform all work up to

standards required by the various research organizations where we enjoy membership

and in some cases participate actively. Paul Braun is recognized as a leader in the field by

colleagues who asked him to serve on these committees. For example, Paul Braun is a

member of the MRA/CMOR committees on response rate improvement and in launching

a seal of quality for the industry. He has served as President of the New Jersey Chapter of

AAPOR, and he is currently serving on AMEC in North America.

Braun Research is a well-respected firm employing techniques and standards approved by

various survey research academic organizations and other affiliations including those with

whom Braun is an active member, including AAPOR (The American Association for Public

Opinion Research) and MRA/CMOR (Market Research Association/Council on Marketing

and Opinion Research) and CASRO (Council on American Survey Research Organizations).


About the Survey Sponsor

The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and

nonpartisan organization, solely dedicated to advancing Milton and Rose Friedman’s

vision of school choice for all children. First established as the Milton and Rose D.

Friedman Foundation in 1996, the Foundation continues to promote school choice as

the most effective and equitable way to improve the quality of K-12 education in

America. The Foundation is dedicated to research, education, and outreach on the vital

issues and implications related to choice in K-12 education.

Commitment to Methods & Transparency

The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice is committed to research that adheres

to high scientific standards, and matters of methodology and transparency are taken

seriously at all levels of our organization. We are dedicated to providing high-quality

information in a transparent and efficient manner.

All individuals have opinions, and many organizations (like our own) have specific

missions or philosophical orientations. Scientific methods, if used correctly and

followed closely in well-designed studies, should neutralize these opinions and

orientations. Research rules and methods minimize bias. We believe rigorous

procedural rules of science prevent a researcher’s motives, and an organization’s

particular orientation, from pre-determining results. If research adheres to proper

scientific and methodological standards, its findings can be relied upon no matter who

has conducted it. If rules and methods are neither specified nor followed, then the biases

of the researcher or an organization may become relevant, because a lack of rigor opens

the door for those biases to affect the results.

Our authors take full responsibility for research design, analysis, charts, and any

unintentional errors or misrepresentations. They welcome any and all questions related

to methods and findings.

Minnesota K-12 & School Choice Survey Questions and Results

Interview Dates: February 7 to 24, 2015

Sample Frame: Registered Voters

Population Samples: MINNESOTA (statewide) = 606

Twin Cities = 323

Margins of Error: MINNESOTA = ± 4.0 percentage points

Twin Cities = ± 5.5 percentage points

Displayed numbers in tables are percentages, unless otherwise noted.

Due to rounding, percentage totals for a given question may be slightly greater or less than 100%.

“For this brief interview, if you are completely unsure about your answer or have no feelings for an answer, you can say ‘I Don’t Know.’” [ENTER AS “DK”]

[CODE GENDER OF RESPONDENT; DO NOT ASK, UNLESS GENDER IS IN QUESTION]

Male Female

MINNESOTA 49 51

1. Which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the state of Minnesota right now?

[RANDOMIZE RESPONSES 1-9 TO AVOID BIAS]

[IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Crime Economy

& Jobs Education Environment Healthcare Housing Immigration

Values Issues

Taxes

MINNESOTA 4 19 20 5 15 5 6 5 15

Twin Cities 2 20 22 6 13 5 6 4 16

2. Are you currently the parent or guardian of a child who lives with you, and who is in any grade from preschool through high school?

[IF NEEDED: IF CHILD IS CURRENTLY ENROLLED OR ENTERING PRESCHOOL IN THE UPCOMING SCHOOL YEAR, ENTER "YES"] [IF NEEDED: IF YOUNGEST CHILD JUST GRADUATED IN 2014, ENTER "NO"] [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Yes No

< PK No

> HS No Children

DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 29 3 30 39 0

3. Do you feel things in Minnesota’s K-12 education system are generally going in the right direction, or do you feel

things have generally gotten off on the wrong track? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Right

Direction Wrong Track

DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 52 36 11

Twin Cities 52 37 11

4. How would you rate Minnesota’s public school system? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Excellent Good Fair Poor DK/Ref (VOL.)



5. How much do you think is spent per year on each student in Minnesota’s public schools? Your estimate (to the

nearest thousand dollars) will represent the combined expenditures of local, state, and federal governments.

[OPEN-END. BASED ON RESPONSE, SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES] [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE, OFFERING RANGE CATEGORIES. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS "DK"]

Less than

$4,000 $4,001 – $8,000

$8,001 – $12,000

$12,001 – $16,000

Over $16,000

DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 20 24 14 7 10 26

Twin Cities 18 24 14 9 11 23

[RANDOMLY ASSIGN QUESTIONS 6A AND 6B]

6. (Split A) Do you believe that public school funding in Minnesota is at a level that is:

[ROTATE “TOO HIGH” AND “TOO LOW”]


Too High About Right Too Low DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 11 39 45 4

Twin Cities 11 39 46 4

6. (Split B) According to the most recent information available, in Minnesota $10,781 is being spent each year per student attending public schools. Do you believe that public school funding in MINNESOTA is at a level that is: [ROTATE “TOO HIGH” AND “TOO LOW”] [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Too High About Right Too Low DK/Ref (VOL.)



7. In thinking about the schools in your area, what grade would you give…

[GRADE OPTIONS: A, B, C, D, or F] [ROTATE “REGULAR PUBLIC SCHOOLS,” “CHARTER SCHOOLS,” “PRIVATE OR PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS”] [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

ALL RESPONDENTS A B C D F DNA/DK/Ref

(VOL.)

Regular Public Schools 14 40 32 7 3 4

Charter Schools 11 30 17 5 1 37

Private Schools 26 38 10 2 1 23

8. If it were your decision and you could select any type of school, what type of school would you select in order to

obtain the best education for your child?

[RANDOMIZE RESPONSES TO AVOID BIAS] [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Charter School

Homeschool Private School

Regular Public School

Virtual School

DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 8 7 36 45 1 2

Twin Cities 8 5 41 43 1 2

9. What is the most important characteristic or attribute that would cause you to

choose a [INSERT SCHOOL TYPE FROM PREVIOUS QUESTION] for your child? Please use one word, or a very short phrase.

[OPEN-END. IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”] Top 10 | Specific impressions offered by respondents in the statewide sample. Numbers represent counts (n), not percentages.

MINNESOTA

BETTER EDUCATION / QUALITY 92

INDIVIDUAL ATTENTION / ONE-ON-ONE 59

DIVERSITY / VARIETY 57

SOCIALIZATION / PEERS / OTHER KIDS 50

CLASS SIZE / STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO 48

TEACHERS / BETTER TEACHERS / TEACHING 43

MORALS / VALUES / ETHICS 39

ACADEMICS / CURRICULUM 34

ENVIRONMENT / CULTURE / COMMUNITY 27

DISCIPLINE / STRUCTURE 25

OTHER RESPONSES 15

DK / NO RESPONSE / REFUSED 18

“For the remainder of this interview, if you are completely unsure about your answer or have no feelings for an answer, feel free to say ‘I Don’t Know.’” [ENTER AS “DK”]

10. Based on what you know, or have heard from others… In general, do you favor or oppose “charter schools”?

[PROBE:] Would you say strongly or somewhat favor/oppose? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Strongly

Favor Somewhat

Favor Somewhat

Oppose Strongly Oppose

DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 16 34 14 7 27


11. Charter schools are public schools that have more control over their own budget, staff, and curriculum, and are

exempt from many existing public school regulations. In general, do you favor or oppose charter schools? [PROBE:] Would you say strongly or somewhat favor/oppose?


Strongly

Favor Somewhat

Favor Somewhat


DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 20 38 20 8 14


12. Based on what you know, or have heard from others… In general, do you favor or oppose “school vouchers”?

[PROBE:] Would you say strongly or somewhat favor/oppose? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Strongly

Favor Somewhat

Favor Somewhat


DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 18 21 13 12 35

Twin Cities 17 19 15 16 32

13. A school voucher system allows parents the option of sending their child to the school of their choice, whether that

school is public or private, including both religious and non-religious schools. If this policy were adopted, tax dollars currently allocated to a school district would be allocated to parents in the form of a “school voucher” to pay partial or full tuition for their child’s school. In general, do you favor or oppose a school voucher system? [PROBE:] Would you say strongly or somewhat favor/oppose? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Strongly

Favor Somewhat

Favor Somewhat


DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 33 31 13 18 5


14. An "education savings account" – often called an ESA – allows parents to take their child out of a public district or charter school, and receive a payment into a government-authorized savings account with restricted, but multiple uses. Parents can then use these funds to pay for private school tuition, tutoring, online education programs, special needs therapies, or save for future college expenses. In general, do you favor or oppose this kind of “savings account system”? [PROBE:] Would you say strongly or somewhat favor/oppose? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Strongly

Favor Somewhat

Favor Somewhat


DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 28 30 17 15 9


15. The Minnesota State Legislature is considering a proposal that would provide education savings accounts to students with physical disabilities or diagnosed with other special needs. In general, do you favor or oppose this kind of proposal? [PROBE:] Would you say strongly or somewhat favor/oppose? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Strongly

Favor Somewhat

Favor Somewhat


DK/Ref (VOL.)



16. Thinking ahead to the next election, if a candidate for Governor, State Senate, or State Representative

supports education savings accounts, would that make you more likely to vote for him or her, less likely, or make no difference whatsoever in your voting?


More Likely No Difference Less Likely DK/Ref (VOL.)



17. A “tax credit” allows an individual or business to reduce the final amount of a tax owed to government. Some states

give tax credits to individuals and businesses if they contribute money to nonprofit organizations that distribute private school scholarships. A “tax-credit scholarship system” allows parents the option of sending their child to the school of their choice, whether that school is public or private, including both religious and non-religious schools. In general, do you favor or oppose a tax-credit scholarship system? [PROBE:] Would you say strongly or somewhat favor/oppose? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Strongly

Favor Somewhat

Favor Somewhat


DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 26 39 15 10 10


18. [IF Q17 = “Strongly Favor” OR “Somewhat Favor”] What is the most important reason you say you favor tax-credit scholarships? Is your main reason that such a system provides:

[RANDOMIZE RESPONSES 1 to 5, TO AVOID BIAS] [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

MINNESOTA Twin Cities

Access to Religious Schools 7 7

Access to Safer Schools 5 5

Access to Schools Having Better Academics 27 30

Access to Schools Providing More Individual Attention 19 17

More Freedom and Flexibility for Parents 36 33

(Something Else/Other) 4 4

DK/Ref (VOL.) 3 3

18. [IF Q17 = “Strongly Oppose” OR “Somewhat Oppose”] What is the most important reason you say you favor tax-credit scholarships? Is your main reason that such a system would:

[RANDOMIZE RESPONSES 1 to 5, TO AVOID BIAS] [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

MINNESOTA Twin Cities

Benefit Businesses and Wealthy Individuals 17 16

Cause Fraudulent Behavior 9 12

Cause Student Transportation Problems 1 0

Divert Funding Away from Public Schools 49 49

Send Funding to Religious Schools 7 8

(Something Else/Other) 10 9

DK/Ref (VOL.) 6 5

“Just a couple more questions about tax-credit scholarships…”


19. (Split A) Some people believe that tax-credit scholarships should be available to all families, regardless of incomes and special needs. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? [PROBE:] Would you say strongly or somewhat agree/disagree? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Strongly

Agree Somewhat

Agree Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 30 38 14 12 6


19. (Split B) Some people believe that tax-credit scholarships should only be available to families based on financial

need. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? [PROBE:] Would you say strongly or somewhat agree/disagree? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Strongly

Agree Somewhat

Agree Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 15 23 29 27 6


20. Thinking ahead to the next election, if a candidate for Governor, State Senate, or State Representative

supports tax-credit scholarships, would that make you more likely to vote for him or her, less likely, or make no difference whatsoever in your voting?


More Likely No Difference Less Likely DK/Ref (VOL.)




21. (Split A) How influential to you is the teachers union’s endorsement of a candidate running for state office like Governor, State Senator, or State Representative?

[PROBE:] Would you say strong or modest positive/negative? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Strong

Positive Modest Positive

Does Not Matter

Modest Negative

Strong Negative

DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 16 30 23 11 14 7

Twin Cities 17 30 24 10 13 6

21. (Split B) How influential to you is a parent advocacy organization’s endorsement of a candidate running for state

office like Governor, State Senator, or State Representative? [PROBE:] Would you say strong or modest positive/negative? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Strong

Positive Modest Positive

Does Not Matter

Modest Negative

Strong Negative

DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 11 37 33 9 4 6

Twin Cities 10 38 35 6 4 7

“Now the following questions should be pretty quick, and for statistical purposes only.…”

22. Generally speaking, do you usually consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or something else? [Code for Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Other, or “DK”]


Democrat Republican Independent Other (VOL.)

Libertarian (VOL.)

DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 34 23 28 10 1 5

23. How would you best describe where you live? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

Urban Suburban Small Town Rural DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 21 38 24 17 < 1

24. Which of the following age categories do you fall in?

[OPEN END, THEN CODE TO AGE CATEGORY]

18 to 34 35 to 54 55 & Over DK/Ref (VOL.)


25. Are you, yourself, of Hispanic or Latino origin, such as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or some other

Spanish background?


Hispanic Not Hispanic DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA 2 98 0

26. Which of the following best describes your race? [IF DEPENDS, PROBE ONCE. IF STILL DEPENDS, ENTER AS “DK”]

American Indian, Native American

Asian, Pacific Islander, Asian American

Black, African American

Mixed Race

White Other (VOL.)

DK/Ref (VOL.)

MINNESOTA < 1 4 3 < 1 92 < 1 0

27. Please stop me when I read the category that best describes your current annual household income, before taxes?


Under

$40,000 $40,000 to

$79,999 $80,000 & Over

DK/Ref (VOL.)


[PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING TEXT AVAILABLE TO INTERVIEWERS ANYTIME A RESPONDENT ASKS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE SURVEY SPONSOR OR FRIEDMAN FOUNDATION]

The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization that studies attitudes toward K-12 education issues facing the states and the country. The Foundation has no connection to the government, political parties, or any campaigns. Reports about its surveys are made available free of charge on their website EdChoice dot ORG.

minnesota k-12 & school choice survey (2015)

News & Politics

charter school students

private school students

home school students

school vouchers

school districts

regular public school

survey questions

education spending